On Preaching To The Choir
So I got a great note from a reader last night regarding my post on what not to pitch to a sex blogging feminist writer. (Spoiler: the offending party was a dating site for Ivy Leaguers.) She wondered whether I’m starting to preach too much to the feminist crowd, at the expense of alienating regular folks who don’t identify strongly with the gender equality movement. She considers herself progressive-minded, but not feminist, because she likes cooking, dressing up, and traditionally feminine activities. She doesn’t want to “have” to do these things because of her gender, but she also doesn’t care if men expect it of other women. In other words, it’s their prerogative if they want a submissive mate. I’d argue that every woman should have to right to autonomously make decisions about how to live her life, without social pressure to behave otherwise. (That’s why I think we ought to change people’s opinion if they believe women or their partner should behave in a demure, feminine manner. These expectations aren’t formed in a vacuum!) And by and large, contemporary feminists acknowledge that choosing to participate in traditionally feminine activities doesn’t mean that one can’t be a feminist. (Just look at this submission I received over on the Feminist Coming Out Day website a couple weeks ago. Shedding light on how feminist beliefs can manifest themselves is part of the reason why I founded the Feminist Portrait Project.)
The above reader also noted that some people, like herself, might find the idea of an Ivy League-only dating site appealing, because they want intelligent mates and have more in common with others who are upper-middle class. I totally get that reasoning, and I do sympathize. What I took issue with (at least as far as IvyDate goes) is the idea that being well-educated automatically makes you a better partner. The company co-CEO Beri Meric said of the site’s members, “Sure there are plenty of ‘guys’ whose lives are dominated by a combination of video-games, cheap beer and casual relationships, but there are just as many responsible, hard-working and successful men looking for like-minded life partners. There hasn’t been an online forum for women to find them, until now.” Perhaps if I’d gotten the impression that this was a dating site that paired smart people with other people, I’d be a little more receptive to the idea. But they specifically state that their members come exclusively from Ivy League schools, MIT, Stanford, LSE, or Oxbridge. It’s not a dating site for people with talent and ambition. It’s a dating site for people who went to top universities, and in its first rendition, it was heavily marketed toward men at top universities who wanted trophy girlfriends. Now it appears to be encouraging Ivy Leaguers to date other Ivy Leaguers. But let’s be real here: this is a company trying to make money and they’re going to market this however they can. They’re not doing this as a public service for the poor, lonely singles out there. They’re catering to people’s desires, and they’re only interested in profit, not in whether this type of dating strategy is actually good for you.
And like I said, I totally understand why someone would want a membership to this site. While much of my work is based in the social justice movement, my personal life is colored by the fact that I attended an elite school and surround myself with a lot of people of a similar background. People gravitate toward the familiar. That’s why the majority of my college friends hang out with other Ivy Leaguers now that they’re living in the “real world”. Do I think that’s unfortunate? Of course. But while I can acknowledge that social networks naturally form around common interests and incomes, that doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t be reflective about 1) why this is the case and 2) why these bubbles are bad. I’ve seen plenty of real-life examples of people constructing bubbles around themselves, because they’re not comfortable with interacting with those who aren’t as rich, as white, as educated, as straight, or even as American as they are. And it all seems fairly innocuous — shouldn’t people be able to do whatever they want? — but there’s a reason why classism and racism and various other -isms exist. We don’t encourage people to step outside of their comfort zone and by letting folks of privilege (those with power and money) remain comfortable, it makes it easier and easier for them to view those who aren’t in their spaces as different or foreign or “other”.
I’m not saying that everyone who attended an Ivy League school acts this way, but I witnessed so much of this attitude in undergrad and I’ve seen people who I consider to be friends say completely offensive things in my presence. (It has almost invariably ended my friendships.) I don’t want to generalize, because again, I’ve met fantastic people at Harvard who are non-pretentious and open-minded. I wouldn’t, however, criticize the desire for similarly minded friends and mates if it weren’t for the fact that most folks are not self-reflective of how their preferences originate, and as a result of that, can form really ugly views.
